[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449342]Why? It gives you exactly the same rights. That's what the fight is about no? How would giving it another name change anything?[/QUOTE]
It's about principles. Show everyone that's it's just the same. No more dancing around the issue
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34446319]But isn't having a relgious belief a right... and aren't you in short taking away/limiting people's rights or beliefs... Therefore making yourself as bad as the people who are trying to stop gay marriage...[/QUOTE]
'Letting someone else do something' isn't taking away your rights.
[QUOTE=Rents;34446439]I assume he regurgitates pieces and stitches them together when he proposes a bill?
I believe anyone with an IQ under 70 is less of a person and should be treated as such, anyone who doesn't let me pass this into law is a bigot who's taking away my rights.[/QUOTE]
Marriage isn't a constitutional right
[QUOTE=Scar;34449364]It's about principles. Show everyone that's it's just the same. No more dancing around the issue[/QUOTE]
Principles. Well congratulations, you are now in the same box with people who don't want same sex marriages because of their principles. Just on opposite side of it.
There is a very easy way to give same sex couples same rights but nope. We're not fighting for that, we're fighting for principles. Shame.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449270]Just call it "union" and make it give the same rights to same sex couples as marriage gives to male-female couples. Homosexuals get equal rights and bigots stay satisfied since their sacred marriage stays sacred. Everyone's happy. Why is the name of any importance?[/QUOTE]
"Separate but equal", much?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449270]Just call it "union" and make it give the same rights to same sex couples as marriage gives to male-female couples. Homosexuals get equal rights and bigots stay satisfied since their sacred marriage stays sacred. Everyone's happy. Why is the name of any importance?[/QUOTE]
I agree.
I also agree we should take interracial couples and take away their status as "married" and replace it with "union", but keep their same benefits of course.
I also think we should bring back separate but equal, give the blacks and whites their OWN pubic services, I mean, it's not like they don't have them, just that they keep to their own
fuck it lets just have separate but equal public services for gay people and straight people too.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449427]Principles. Well congratulations, you are now in the same box with people who don't want same sex marriages because of their principles. Just on opposite side of it.
There is a very easy way to give same sex couples same rights but nope. We're not fighting for that, we're fighting for principles. Shame.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I meant at all.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449426]Marriage isn't a constitutional right[/QUOTE]
Neither is internet free speech
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449548]Neither is internet free speech[/QUOTE]
Free speech is free speech. Doesn't matter where.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449548]Neither is internet free speech[/QUOTE]
Free speech and free press are, those two include the internet
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under God, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Do us a favor and never post again.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449548]Neither is internet free speech[/QUOTE]
Technically it is though, but who follows the UN?
[QUOTE=Nikota;34449637]Technically it is though, but who follows the UN?[/QUOTE]
oh, yeah, THAT.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights grants Marriage as a right.
The DHR is ingrained into the constitution when the US signed it.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449426]Marriage isn't a constitutional right[/QUOTE]
I don't give a fuck if it was written down on toilet paper, everyone should have exactly the same rights, especially in the eyes of their government.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449689]oh, yeah, THAT.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights grants Marriage as a right.
The DHR is ingrained into the constitution when the US signed it.[/QUOTE]
The DHR doesn't really have much legal binding, for heaven's sake China signed it.
The US isn't part of the ICC anyways so there's no way to enforce it
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rents;34449719]I don't give a fuck if it was written down on toilet paper, everyone should have exactly the same rights, especially in the eyes of their government.[/QUOTE]
You can't say it's a violation of your rights because it's not an American right
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under God, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Marriage predates Christianity.
Debate over. Your side loses. Mind your own fucking business and keep your crazy bullshit between you and your imaginary friend.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34449816]Marriage predates Christianity.
Debate over. Your side loses. Mind your own fucking business and keep your crazy bullshit between you and your imaginary friend.[/QUOTE]
Although I agree, out of curiosity: does gay marriage predate Christianity?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449755]You can't say it's a violation of your rights because it's not an American right[/QUOTE]
I don't get you meaning here, do you mean that only the US Constitution can grant people rights or that non-citizens don't have rights?
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449836]Although I agree, out of curiosity: does gay marriage predate Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Unlikely as they were intended to be a union between families. The honeymoon isn't supposed to end until the woman is pregnant, thereby sealing the union with a blood connection. They were property contracts.
But tax credits and right of attorney didn't exist at that time either, which meant it didn't matter because the government wasn't involved.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449836]Although I agree, out of curiosity: does gay marriage predate Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Well I don't think there's going to be a concrete answer on this, but homophobia wasn't quite as big a deal before the main 3 abrahamic religions popped up, so it's possible?
[QUOTE=Rents;34449848]I don't get you meaning here, do you mean that only the US Constitution can grant people rights or that non-citizens don't have rights?[/QUOTE]
Yea, except the constitution applies to non-citizens as well. There has to be some standard that outlines what rights the government has. I think the constitution needs to be changed, but when talking about what rights people have, the constitution is a good indicator.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449755]The DHR doesn't really have much legal binding, for heaven's sake China signed it.[/quote]
Oh okay, so china signed, there fore the US doesn't have to?
[quote]The US isn't part of the ICC anyways so there's no way to enforce it[/quote]
"2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. "
[quote]You can't say it's a violation of your rights because it's not an American right[/QUOTE]
First off, it is, second of all, even not, why shouldn't it be?
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34449836]Although I agree, out of curiosity: does gay marriage predate Christianity?[/QUOTE]
No, gay relationships on par with heterosexual relationships have existed though. Marriage was originally not even what we consider it today.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
It was primogeniture.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449523]I agree.
I also agree we should take interracial couples and take away their status as "married" and replace it with "union", but keep their same benefits of course.
I also think we should bring back separate but equal, give the blacks and whites their OWN pubic services, I mean, it's not like they don't have them, just that they keep to their own
fuck it lets just have separate but equal public services for gay people and straight people too.[/QUOTE]
First you talk about changing and dividing something that already exist, then you talk about separating people physically. And you act like it's the same thing as creating something new that does exactly the same thing as something else under a different name.
Marriage at the moment is understood as a legal contract binding male and female (by many people). To give same-sex couples same rights you either have to change what "marriage" is or create something that does the same thing for the group that doesn't fit under the definition of marriage. The conflict comes from the fact that some people want the marriage to stay what it is, union between male and female, while others want it to be union between two people disregarding the sexes. Anything you don't agree with up to this point?
Why is there a separate name for female and male they are both people. Why not just call both people? Oh shit cause they are different? Same-sex union and male-female marriage would be different too, both would be a social union or legal contract between people. I simply can't fathom how having a different name for something that does basically the same implies that one is worse than the other. If it's the equal rights you're fighting for, that would be a perfect way of getting it more or less without resistance. Then later you can fight to merge the both unions under the same name. It would surely go easier than struggling to change other people's definitions of marriage and make them understand straight away.
And you're making fun of religious people or whoever opposes allowing same-sex couples to marry because they give additional meanings and values to "marriage" but you do the same thing. For me marriage is a legal bond between two people, not some fucking mystical thing.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
And don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everyone would accept same-sex marriage and just get along. But I'm being realistic here. Trying to come up with a solution. That might not be perfect from the start but may lead to that point.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34451069]First you talk about changing and dividing something that already exist, then you talk about separating people physically. And you act like it's the same thing as creating something new that does exactly the same thing as something else under a different name.
Marriage at the moment is understood as a legal contract binding male and female (by many people). To give same-sex couples same rights you either have to change what "marriage" is or create something that does the same thing for the group that doesn't fit under the definition of marriage. The conflict comes from the fact that some people want the marriage to stay what it is, union between male and female, while others want it to be union between two people disregarding the sexes. Anything you don't agree with up to this point?
Why is there a separate name for female and male they are both people. Why not just call both people? Oh shit cause they are different? Same-sex union and male-female marriage would be different too, both would be a social union or legal contract between people. I simply can't fathom how having a different name for something that does basically the same implies that one is worse than the other. If it's the equal rights you're fighting for, that would be a perfect way of getting it more or less without resistance. Then later you can fight to merge the both unions under the same name. It would surely go easier than struggling to change other people's definitions of marriage and make them understand straight away.
And you're making fun of religious people or whoever opposes allowing same-sex couples to marry because they give additional meanings and values to "marriage" but you do the same thing. For me marriage is a legal bond between two people, not some fucking mystical thing.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
And don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everyone would accept same-sex marriage and just get along. But I'm being realistic here. Trying to come up with a solution. That might not be perfect from the start but may lead to that point.[/QUOTE]
This is not a battle over a definition of terms. The whole 'marriage is a religious construct' thing is one excuse. Once that's eliminated, the bigots will find another convenient excuse. This is about people fighting for civil rights against a group that would strip them of those rights, and words are irrelevant.
New York Allowed it, New jersey always follows us.
I want to have a debate on TV about this. At the beginning of the debate, the moderator will remind the two parties about separation of church and state. Additional moderators will stand next to the participants, and if someone mentions religion as part of their argument, a moderator will slap them in the face and tell them to start over.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34443527]i think both straight and gay marriages should be just categorized as 'Civil Unions' and they can both call it whatever they want[/QUOTE]
It's marriage they both deserve marriage and not "civil unions" because that would bring down everything they've been fighting for.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34455271]It's marriage they both deserve marriage and not "civil unions" because that would bring down everything they've been fighting for.[/QUOTE]
'Separate but equal' didn't work in the past and it sure as shit won't work today.
Legalize it. I don't give a shit about conservatives' bigoted views. They can fuck themselves.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;34454664]New York Allowed it, New jersey always follows us.[/QUOTE]
As a South Jersey resident, it's mandatory to say "fuck you" for living in NY and saying that.
No hard feelings though! :wink:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
